Life is tumultuous and unpredictable, and consequently, so are politics. Which begs the question: how well do the varied natures of such things translate to our governing bodies and, more specifically, our own Constitution? An exploration of the origin, the path, and the future of the United States Constitution shows that it might not be as reflective of the wants and wishes of its citizens as it should be; in fact, it may be just the opposite.
The United States of America began as a humble thirteen colonies that set out to design a government that would best serve the people and their interests. Their previous government had left them wary of a powerful centralized government, and they wanted a nation that would never again be subject to
…show more content…
tyrants in positions of power. They had spent several years without a formal Constitution and had seen the economy change and crash as the states lost control of the currency. The people disagreed about how things should be run, and laws were left to languish, as no central authority was present to regulate and enforce them anymore. Because of this, the framers felt that the Constitution needed impenetrable safeguards to protect against those governing that might change its text to benefit themselves and not the citizens, but also knew that a centralized government was necessary. Fresh out of a revolution, the people of the United States felt that they had been wronged by their previous leaders and were given an opportunity to institute a government of their own choosing. The Constitution’s inflexibility is a product of the founding fathers’ fear of an incompetent leader and populace, the result of which is Article V. Article V of the Constitution is responsible for setting the framework through which a constitutional amendment may be created. There are two specified ways to amend the Constitution within the Article: Congress can propose an amendment if it is approved by two-thirds of both chambers and is subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the states, or two- thirds of the states may apply for a constitutional convention after which it must be approved by three-fourths of both houses as well (Rogers 2007). The constitutional convention method has never been used, and is therefore much less familiar to the public and therefore less likely to be used in the future. There is some ambiguity in the wording of this Article. However, the formidable obstacle of the requirements that are clearly defined stand in the way of any real change to this pivotal document. This has discouraged and halted many attempts at substantial progress or movement in the form of a formal constitutional amendment. For such an important component of the Constitution, Article V was one of the smallest concerns in the eyes of the founding fathers. The discussion surrounding it did not even begin until a week prior to the signing of the Constitution (Ellis 2011). There was no reason given as to why the delegates chose a two-thirds vote for an amendment proposal and a three-fourths vote for amendment ratification. Their main concern was making an amendment process that was easier to navigate than the previous one, but since the previous requirements for amendment ratification under the Articles of Confederation had been unanimous approval by all of the states, little was required to achieve this goal. The design of Article V is to maintain the status quo, even if that is not the best course of action. Therein lies the problem, the arduous nature of amending may have even played a role in the civil war as the Constitution tacitly defended slavery and was heavily resistant to being altered when it became clear that the institution of slavery was no longer reflective of the will of the people. The status quo cannot reflect the dynamic nature of society, and the inadequate burden placed on those who want constitutional change is unfair and dangerous to the nation. Even with all of that in mind, the United States still has the most obstinate Constitution of any democratic country in the world today (Ellis 2011). Although the reasons behind Article V are clearly evident and even quite understandable given the circumstances of its inception, there are many drawbacks to this article that make the document less desirable than the writers intended it to be.
Unfortunately, the process of amending Article V is difficult, meaning it has not changed and likely will not. This makes for a governing document that is not able to change with its people and adapt to the shifting geopolitical, economic, and social atmospheres of the ages. While some may argue that there is merit to a Constitution that is not easily swayed by the whims and passions of the people at any given time, there is arguably more merit in a fluid and adjustable document that can best meet the needs of the people as they change with the …show more content…
times. There have been only twenty-seven Constitutional amendments that have achieved the supermajority required to become ratified, and the last one to do so was ratified over twenty years ago. Not only that, but the first ten were ratified with the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. That means that there have been only seventeen total changes made to the Constitution since its implementation. Which is not to imply that there have only been seventeen changes that needed to be made, but rather, any other potential improvements could not achieve the unreasonable supermajority requirement. Despite the many proposals that have been made, very few have ever gained enough traction to have a chance, and those that have, or may in the future, must then garner almost unanimous approval to pass. This unyielding nature is what has lead to Article V’s virtual death in the current American political scape. The amendments that actually have been passed have subsequently been becoming increasingly minor as well, often dealing with small structural revisions and voting rights (Albert 2014). Even the most well-intentioned and overall beneficial proposals have not been able to reach this high standard, and often leave gaps in policies that have to be compensated for through other levels of government and through separate governmental channels, like the state and local levels.
After the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment, for example, Stephen Carter, an American Law Professor, rightfully stated, “Article V is very nearly a dead letter” (Albert 2014). This was a proposal that could have done tremendous good, but despite having significant support, it still could not obtain high enough levels of endorsement. This means that there is a problem with the Constitution that is unlikely to be fixed. Instead of making the requirements for a constitutional amendment that the majority of citizens support, the rules actually make it so that the majority has a harder time accomplishing significant change. Because it takes such a small amount of dissent to stop an amendment from being passed, it is counterproductive in its intention of requiring majority approval from both the states and the chambers, and likewise their constituents. Very small factions of citizens or states in disagreement are capable of derailing the entire goal of an amendment, despite the support of the majority of the population. In fact, given our current population and distribution, it is possible for five percent of the
populatio
Since its very conception, the Constitution of the United States has while holding great reverence, been a great topic of debate amongst the political scholars left to analyze it in all its ambiguity. Two such scholars, John Roche and Charles Beard, in their analyses of the Constitution aim to tackle a layer of the uncertainty: how democratic the Framers truly intended the Constitution to be. John Roche speaks in unquestionably high regard of the Framers in advocating that they so evidently compromised their own values in order to create a democratic document that would strengthen the US as a whole. Charles Beard conversely insists that as the economic elite of their time, the Framers were influenced primarily by their private interests to
Madison speaks of the problems of the present attempts at a new government saying “our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority”.
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if your worst fears became reality? For the founding father and crafters of the U.S. Constitution those fears have come to roost. What was originally designed to be the foundation of our country, and the law of the land; has now been amended out of existence. The ratification of the 17th Amendment changed the country’s political landscape and weakened the U.S. Constitution by allowing Senators to be directly elected by popular vote instead of by the legislatures of the states they represent. This Amendment was a byproduct of the Democratic Progressive movement. It was believed by some that it would correct the procedural issues and perceived political corruption associated with the election of state Senators to Congress. The Amendment was touted as a permanent solution to these problems, and would ultimately result in making politics and the political process more accessible to the average citizen. However, the 17th Amendment has failed to deliver on its promises, and has produced a Senate that is even less responsive to voters, even more corrupt with campaign contributions and allegiances to large corporations and special interest groups, and fails to truly represent the interests of the states. Moreover, the 17th Amendment removed a crucial check and balance that was purposely designed into the Constitution in order to preserve state’s rights and prevent the abuse of federal powers. The 17th Amendment should be repealed in order to restore the intended power and sovereignty of the state, preserve the original federal distributive powers system, and to prevent the spread of abusive federal powers.
The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
After the Revolutionary War, the newly formed United States still had a major task ahead of them. They had to form a new government that would satisfy the demands of the people and ensure the success of their nation. The Articles of Confederation was the first system of government that was proposed and put into effect. This attempt at creating a system that protected the people form a strong central government ultimately failed but was an important step in the development of the current government system. The weaknesses presented by the Articles of Confederation helped lead to reforms that made the Constitution successful. Both the Articles and the Constitution demonstrate the struggles that the colonists went through with the British and their desire to establish a new tyranny free government.
Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to completion, laws that are enforced have significant impacts on the everyday lives of the American people—such as laws concerning abortion rights. In the United States, the government and Congress have significantly affected the rights of women with regard to abortions through laws that either restrict or guarantee their legality and availability, while the government’s capacity to do so is affected by the principle of federalism along with that of the separation of powers.
In 1776 when the Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain with the Declaration of Independence they had one clear goal in mind: become a sovereign nation and avoid the tyranny of Great Britain. What they did not know, however, is that they had to face many more issues beyond simply cutting the ties with Great Britain; they also had to create and maintain a working system of rules which could guide them into becoming the United States of America. Once Independence was gained in 1783, the Articles of Confederation were created, but with many deep flaws in the system. The Federal government had no power, and the states were loosely held together and hardly acted as if they were a single united nation. After recognizing that these problems were too large to overcome easily, several of the greatest men in the nation gathered together to rectify these problems.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
After the American Revolution ended in 1776, the 13 united American colonies struggled to form a national government. Each colony established its own government, but it was very difficult to write a constitution that everyone would agree on. Citizens were more loyal towards their colonies rather than towards the whole country. When the Continental Congress wrote the Articles of Confederation, the American people made sure that the central government formed under the Articles was weak. They lived in fear that
One of the ideologies of America was that the best government was a small government. Our country was founded by settlers who wanted to get out of the grasp of Great Britain rule. These settlers wanted to have the natural rights that they felt were guaranteed to them by god. The Declaration of Independence was written to declare that the thirteen colonies were claiming themselves as independent states. Then U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. These important papers spell out freedoms guaranteed to Americans and the laws that protect those freedoms. They talk of a government that works for the people.
For most commentators, constitutional amendments rules are designed to serve exactly this purpose that is, to allow for the correction of or improvement upon prior constitutional design choice in light of new information, evolving experience or political understanding. As Prof. Sunstein has opined the Central goal of a constitution is to create the preconditions for a well-functioning democratic order, one in which citizens are genuinely able to govern themselves. Understanding the meaning of Constitution from Prof. Sunstein‘s definition of constitution, we can also term Constitution‘ as the supreme document of any nation by which the system of governance is controlled and regulated by enacting laws and regulations. Constitutions are usually classified as flexible‘ or ‗rigid‘ depending upon the process through which they can be amended. Prof. A.V. Dicey defines two types of Constitutions the flexible as one under which every law of every description can legally be changed with the same ease and in the same manner by one and the same body‘, and the rigid Constitutions as ‗one under which certain laws generally known as constitutional or fundamental laws, cannot be changed in the same manner as ordinary